Thomas v. Saul
| Decision Date | 07 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. ELH-20-581 |
| Parties | ARNOLD H. THOMAS Plaintiff v. ANDREW SAUL, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
The self-represented plaintiff, Arnold Thomas, filed suit against Andrew Saul, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"); William Barr, United States Attorney General; and Robert K. Hur, United States Attorney for the District of Maryland. ECF 1 ("Complaint"). Thomas alleges that the SSA owes him funds in the amount of $105, 253 for his earnings between 1980 and 2005. Id. at 6. And, he contends that the SSA has "repeatedly failed to plead or defend" the claim that he has brought against the SSA. Id. Thus, plaintiff requests a default judgment in the amount of $105,253 pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Id. at 7. The suit is supported by eight exhibits. ECF 1-1 to ECF 1-8.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the suit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). ECF 6. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law. ECF 6-1 (collectively, the "Motion"). In the Motion, defendants argue, inter alia, that dismissal is warranted based on sovereign immunity and because the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief. Id. at 1. Plaintiff opposes the Motion (ECF 11), supported by the same eight exhibits attached to the Complaint. ECF 11-1 to ECF 11-8. Defendants have not replied (see docket), and the time to do so has expired.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion.
Plaintiff, a citizen of Florida, claims that he is the "recorded Secured Creditor with a priority contractual lien hold interest to all property and income held in the Debtor Name of: ARNOLD HAMILTON THOMAS, Acct # xxx-xx-8126, as evidenced by Florida U.C.C.-1 Financing Statement No. 201909015863, and amended U.C.C. 3 Statement No. 201909917964." ECF 1 at 6 ().
Between October 2019 and January 2020, plaintiff contacted the SSA on at least five occasions, asking the SSA to "release" funds equal to the sum of all the earnings paid to him by his employers between 1980 and 2005. ECF 1 at 6; see ECF 1-5; ECF 1-6; ECF 1-7; ECF 1-8; ECF 1-1. First, on October 15, 2019, plaintiff executed and sent an "Affidavit of Claim & Demand Order to Release Trust Funds" to the SSA. ECF 1-5 ("October 2019 Affidavit"). In the October 2019 Affidavit, Thomas stated that he "has paid a total sum of $105,253.00 in his account...from the years 1980 to 2005" and that amount has been granted accepted and conveyed to the ARNOLD HAMILTON THOMAS TRUST" and "assigned as trust property[.]" ECF 1-5 at 1. Further, he explained that the property was established under a "Security Contract Agreement," and "recorded on file with Florida UCC-1 Financing Statement File No. 201909015863." Id. Thomas asserted that the SSA had 20 days from the receipt of his affidavit to "comply with said demand order to release funds; or submit a rebuttal affidavit." Id. at 2.
Plaintiff claims that the SSA "failed to plead or defend" the October 2019 Affidavit by November 26, 2019, so he sent the SSA a "Notice of Fault Opportunity to Cure." ECF 1 at 6; ECF 1-6 ("November 2019 Notice"). In the notice, plaintiff stated that the SSA "failed to perform," so it is now "in FAULT." Id. at 1 (emphasis in original). Further, Thomas explained that the SSA had "the right to cure this fault and perform to said terms within ten (10) days from the postmark of this Notice" or he would file for a default judgment in federal court. Id.
Thereafter, on December 9, 2019, Thomas sent the SSA a "Notice of Pending Default Opportunity to Cure." ECF 1-7 ("December 2019 Notice"). Plaintiff noted that the SSA's failure to respond to his November 2019 Notice "stipulated as to [the SSA's] willful agreement to the conditions stated in the affidavit." Id. at 1. And, he gave the SSA another ten days to respond. Id.
Then, on January 2, 2020, Thomas sent the SSA an "Affidavit Notice of Default," in which he noted that the "SSA again failed to plead or defend affiants [sic] initial affidavit of claim," so the SSA "is now in commercial dishonor and DEFAULT." ECF 1-8 at 2. And, plaintiff stated that the SSA "is immediately instructed to release claimants [sic] funds..." Id. at 3.
Thereafter, on January 23, 2020, Thomas filed an "Affidavit of Complaint and Claim Order to Release Funds" with the SSA. ECF 1-1 ("January 2020 Affidavit"). In the January 2020 Affidavit, Thomas repeated the claims lodged in the October 2019 Affidavit and reviewed all of his previous submissions to the SSA. Id. And, Thomas stated that "by [the SSA's] intentional silence and acquiescence to plead or defend the claims" set forth in the October 2019 Affidavit, the SSA has "tacitly 'CONTRACTED' and agreed to the terms as stipulated in affiants [sic] initial affidavit..." Id. at 4 (emphasis in original).
This suit followed on March 2, 2020. See ECF 1.
District courts of the United States are courts of limited jurisdiction; they possess "'only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'" Gunn v. Minton, 586 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)); see Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). Simply put, if Congress or the Constitution "has not empowered the federal judiciary to hear a matter, then the case must be dismissed." Home Buyers Warranty Corp. v. Hanna, 750 F.3d 427, 432 (4th Cir. 2014); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) () (citation omitted).
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a defendant to challenge the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's suit. Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Demetres v. E. W. Const., Inc., 776 F.3d 271, 272 (4th Cir. 2015); see also The Piney Run Preservation Ass'n v. Cty. Comm'rs of Carroll Cty., 523 F.3d 453, 459 (4th Cir. 2008); Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). However, a court should grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) "'only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.'" B.F. Perkins, 166 F.3d at 647 (citation omitted).
A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may proceed "in one of two ways": either a facial challenge or a factual challenge. Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009); accord Hutton v. Nat'l Bd. of Exam'rs Inc., 892 F.3d 613, 620-21 (4th Cir. 2018). Here, the defendants raise a facial challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the doctrine of sovereign immunity forecloses plaintiff's claim. ECF 6-1 at 6-7; see Cunningham v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech., Inc., 888 F.3d 640, 649 (4th Cir. 2018) () (citation omitted), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. (2018). In such a case, "the defendant must show that a complaint fails to allege facts upon which subject-matter jurisdiction can be predicated." Hutton, 892 F.3d at 621 n.7; see Kerns, 585 F.3d at 192.
As noted, defendants argue that sovereign immunity bars the relief sought by Thomas. ECF 6-1 at 6-7. Defendants point to plaintiff's failure to allege that he has obtained a "final [agency] decision" with respect to any claim for social security benefits. Id. Therefore, they maintain that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Further, defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief; plaintiff has not established that he is entitled to a default judgment; and, the United States Attorney and the United States Attorney General for the District of Maryland are improper parties. Id. at 2. I start and end my analysis with defendants' sovereign immunity claim.
It is well settled that the United States is "immune from suit save as it consents to be sued." United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941); see United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983) (); Ayala v. United States, ___F.3d___, 2020 WL 7050099, at *2 (4th Cir. Dec. 2, 2020) () (citing Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 686-90 (1949)). "Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit." FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994); see Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 212; Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 30 (1953). In general, the sovereign immunity of the United States extends to federal officers sued in their official capacity. See Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 620 (1963); Portsmouth Redev. & Hous. Auth. v. Pierce, 706 F.2d 471, 473 (4th Cir. 1983). Therefore, defendants enjoy "a presumption of immunity." Robinson v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 917 F.3d 799, 801 (4th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1440 (2020).
A "waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text," and be "clearly evident from the language of the statute." FAA v. Coo...
To continue reading
Request your trial